CTA KM KS 4 Policy Final Report Dec 2015

1
Final Report
on resources on Knowledge
Management and Sharing in support of
Policy processes in agriculture and
other sectors
By:
Wenny W.S. Ho
For the Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation (CTA)
November 2015

2
Executive Summary
As per its strategic plan 2011-2015, CTA is committed to assisting ACP regions in supporting
policy processes on agricultural and rural development. Those efforts are managed through
the PMI programme of the Centre. CTA also supports relevant organisations to strengthen
methodologies, skills and tools to improve their KM activities. The ability of the ACP
institutions to combine these policy and KM efforts can ensure greater collective impact of
CTAs activities on the ground. This report explores KM methods skills and tools that are
more adapted to supporting policy processes. It consist of:
1. an exploratory phase on existing and documented resources on knowledge
management in support of policy processes in agriculture and other sectors;
2. a phase to ground the findings in the current implementation of policy processes
supported by CTA1
; and
3. a phase to elaborate CTA-specific suggestions and recommendations for KM in
support of policy processes.
This report presents the findings of the first, exploratory phase, and lays the foundation for
the second phase of grounding the findings in policy processes supported by CTA. A policy
process is defined as: “The way policy reforms are planned, designed, implemented and
evaluated”. However, policy processes are not sharply delimited processes with static
boundaries and progressing through fixed stages. Although policy processes are perceived by
some as ‘complex and windy’, different emphases can be distinguished. These emphases
result in stages that cannot be clearly demarcated because they typically overlap, or flow
from one into another. The following five stages are discerned in a policy process:
1. agenda setting;
2. analysis;
3. decision-making;
4. implementation;
5. monitoring and evaluation
Information is explained as tangible data consisting of hard numbers and facts, independent
from context and easily transferable. Knowledge is then defined as contextualized and
interpreted information. In this report, the focus is placed on Knowledge Management (KM)
and Knowledge Sharing (KS). Knowledge Management is defined as encompassing any
processes and practices concerned with the creation, acquisition, capture, sharing and use of
knowledge, skills and expertise whether these are explicitly labelled as ‘KM’ or not. In
contrast to information sharing, Knowledge Sharing understood here as creating learning
processes, occurs when people are genuinely interested in helping one another develop new
capacities for action. As such, it forms an important part of Knowledge Management.
1
Specifically regarding Climate Smart Agriculture; Food and Nutrition Security; Regional Trade; and possibly
Value Chain Development

3
While there are numerous definitions of KM, the number of approaches and instruments
and tools is even greater. These are presented and discussed in chapter one. The literature
search regarding KM approaches and tools in support of policy suggests that many of these
have been developed first for businesses or companies. Only later have they been adopted
or adapted for policy processes. Even when policy processes are presented as the central
focus, KM approaches and tools are not developed specifically or exclusively for policy
processes. Yet, both from a KM and from a policy process lens, there are areas where KM
and policy processes converge and synergize around a purpose. These purpose-oriented
areas deserve further development, for which a holistic perspective on and systems
approach to KM in support of policy processes is required to further strengthen their
synergies.
A first step to achieve this is to look at the lessons already learned from reviews of general
KM approaches and tools. One key lesson learned from evaluations of KM approaches across
different sectors is that KM approaches and instruments need to contribute to an
organisation’s mission. For that, they need to closely relate to the organisation’s core
business processes. Similarly, KM approaches and instruments should support policy
processes based on an intimate connection with the main policy stages that are
distinguished in this report. For each stage, a short description of typical KM approaches is
given, followed by an annotated presentation of KM resources and tools.
Major trends in policy making are sketched and their implications for KM in support of policy
processes are offered. The report concludes with an overview of KM approaches and tools
that are already in use in policy processes supported by CTA. Propositions are put forward
how KM support for policy processes can further be enhanced, especially given the trends
described earlier in the report.

4
Table of Contents
Executive Summary................................................................................................................................. 2
1. Introduction...................................................................................................................................... 5
1.1. Working definitions..................................................................................................................... 6
1.2. Scope of the study: boundary setting and assumptions.............................................................. 7
2. KM approaches and instruments for different stages in policy processes ....................................... 11
2.1 Agenda Setting ............................................................................................................................ 12
2.1.1 Information.................................................................................................................... 12
2.1.2 Research ........................................................................................................................ 13
2.1.3 Knowledge Integration: systems-based tools for agenda setting................................. 14
2.2 Analysis .................................................................................................................................... 14
2.3 Decision making (Defining objectives & options) ................................................................. 16
2.4 Implementation........................................................................................................................ 20
2.5 Monitoring & Evaluation......................................................................................................... 21
3. KM in support of Policy processes: three issues of importance ................................................ 23
3.1 Political dimensions of policy processes .................................................................................... 24
3.2 Power relations and local voices in policy processes ............................................................... 24
3.3 Emerging trends in policy processes ........................................................................................ 25
4. KM services and products............................................................................................................... 27
ANNEX : ................................................................................................................................................. 29

5
1. Introduction
The CTA Strategic plan 2011-2015 refers to addressing three strategic goals, one of which is
supporting policy processes in ACP regions. As example, the CAADP being implemented
across the African continent by partners of CTA requires the development of knowledge,
information and skills to respond to issues and challenges encountered during
implementation. The recently developed CAADP results framework refers to the reliance on
high quality analysis and knowledge products, documentation of successes, experiences and
lessons learnt being shared in order to feed the policy dialogue among implementing
partners. This synergizes with another strategic goal of the CTA, which is to strengthen
capacity of ACP institutions in knowledge management. The ability of the ACP institutions to
combine these policy and KM efforts can ensure greater collective impact of CTAs activities
on the ground.
This report presents a study on KM methods skills and tools that are more adapted to
supporting policy processes. The study consisted of:
1. a phase on existing and documented resources on knowledge management in
support of policy processes in agriculture and other sectors;
2. a phase to ground the findings in the current policy processes supported by CTA2
(through desk research on CTA's policy-making processes and if necessary key
interviews with staff) to map their distinguishing characteristics and the existing use
of KM;
3. a phase to elaborate CTA-specific suggestions and recommendations for KM in
support of policy processes:
a. analyse potential areas for improvement in applying KM techniques and tools
to support policy processes, to strengthen inclusive knowledge and evidence-
based policy processes and multi-stakeholder decision-making;
b. Identify and annotate existing learning resources that are relevant to the
areas identified above, and compile a list of web-based resources that can
serve as a reference base for KM in policy processes which could also be
promoted by CTA among ACP institutions;
c. Based on the above analysis, develop proposals for the development of
additional learning resources that can fill gaps identified.
This report presents the findings of the first, exploratory phase consisting of research on
existing and documented resources on knowledge management in support of policy
processes in agriculture and other sectors.
2
Specifically regarding Climate Smart Agriculture; Food and Nutrition Security; Regional Trade; and possibly
Value Chain Development

6
Policy processes are not sharply delimited processes with fixed and static boundaries.
Rather, they share fuzzy boundaries with other processes that feed into change and
innovation, ranging from bureaucratic and public administration processes to bargaining and
conflict resolution. In consequence, defining and delimiting knowledge management and
knowledge sharing in support of policy processes may suffer from the same overlap.
In the first chapter definitions and descriptions are given to provide easier handling of the
broad topic of KM in support of policy processes. This framework of definitions and concepts
are then used to unpack policy processes. In this way, a better fit and fruitful relationship
with KM approaches and tools is achieved which is detailed in the second chapter. In the
third and closing chapter, some observations will be made about trends and innovations in
policy processes which may require further attention for the development or identification
of KM techniques to accompany such trends.
1.1. Working definitions
For this report, the following working definition is used to describe and delimit a policy
process: “The way policy reforms are planned, designed, implemented and evaluated”
(©FAO 2009 Resources for policy making).3
By deliberately leaving open the how, what and
who, the definition encompasses also aspects and stages that are conventionally not
included in formal policy processes, such as, various forms of more informal citizen
consultations.
Policy making has traditionally been viewed as a linear, top-down approach with two distinct
phases: formulation and implementation. This approach has been criticized for many years,
based on the argument that policy development is an open, dynamic, and highly political
process, which involves multiple actors and negotiations.4
Several organisations involved in
policy processes propose that for various reasons “policy processes are complex and messy”.
5
While in general this may be true, still different emphases can be distinguished. These
result in stages in one and the same policy process that cannot always be clearly demarcated
because they typically flow from one stage over into another.
Different sources distinguish different stages, for example, by differentiating stages per
objective. This may result in the stages of communication/information dissemination,
sharing, learning, policy-making, policy change, and policy implementation and monitoring.
For public policy processes in the USA, a multi-stage cycle is proposed with “six stages that
overlap each other, with additional mini-stages, in a process that never really ends”.6
The six
3
http://www.fao.org/docs/up/easypol/541/making-sense_policy_processes_169en.pdf Accessed 10
th
May 2014
4
http://www.gsdrc.org/go/topic-guides/political-systems/policy-processes. Accessed 10
th
May 2014
5
Dubois O. and U.P. Ciamarra, FAO, 2009 : http://www.fao.org/docs/up/easypol/541/making-
sense_policy_processes_169en.pdf Accessed 10
th
May 2014
6
http://www.laits.utexas.edu/gov310/PEP/policy/ Accessed 10
th
May 2014

7
stages are: problem identification; agenda setting; policy making including policy
formulation; budgeting; implementation; and, evaluation.
Information is here explained as tangible data consisting of hard numbers and facts,
independent from context and easily transferable. Knowledge is then defined as
contextualized and interpreted information (Hjorth (2003. In: Hordijk, M. and I. Baud, 2006).
This study focuses on two knowledge areas: Knowledge Management (KM) and Knowledge
Sharing (KS). A simple definition of the role of KM is “getting the right knowledge to the
right person at the right time”. 7
However, the central concept of ‘Use’ is left out this way.
Therefore, in this paper, a working definition is used of Knowledge Management as
encompassing any processes and practices concerned with the creation, acquisition, capture,
sharing and use of knowledge, skills and expertise whether these are explicitly labelled as
‘KM’ or not (Swan et al., 1999. In: Ferguson et al. 2008:8),
Knowledge Sharing is an elusive concept which is used according to one’s purpose. At times
it is used to point out the dissemination of information, other times, it is described as
working intensively together. For example, Peter Senge states that:
“Sharing knowledge is not about giving people something, or getting something from
them. That is only valid for information sharing. Sharing knowledge occurs when
people are genuinely interested in helping one another develop new capacities for
action; it is about creating learning processes.”8
In the same vein, David Gurteen states that “knowledge sharing is not just about giving, but
fundamentally, it is about being more open in your way of work and in your relationships
with other people”.
In this report, knowledge sharing is interpreted in this second manner and follows the
description given by Peter Senge. As a consequence, here Knowledge Sharing understood to
be an important part of Knowledge Management (KM).
Taking into account the fact that numerous definitions of KM exist, the range of approaches
and instruments and tools is still baffling. However, it is important to see that despite
different names, there is a great degree of overlap in approaches and tools.
1.2. Scope of the study: boundary setting and assumptions
An exploratory search of available literature regarding KM approaches and tools and
mechanisms in support of policy covering different sectors including agriculture, health and
education resulted in a number of conclusions. Firstly, ‘pure’ KM approaches, mechanisms
7
http://www.knowledge-management-tools.net/#ixzz35Y4y3oMd Accessed 10
th
May 2014
8
http://www.gurteen.com/gurteen/gurteen.nsf/id/knowledge-sharing Accessed 2nd June 2014.

8
and tools in support of policy do not exist . Many have in a first instance been developed for
businesses or companies, and only later been adopted for policy processes. In consequence,
various resources that appear to contain relevant resources on KM approaches and tools for
policy processes are primarily oriented towards businesses (e.g. ‘KM for performance and
growth’), and therefore, implicitly or explicitly, are oriented by a profit-making aim. An
example is the Henley Forum (previously known as Henley KM Forum), developed by an
university-based business school.9
Other resources that present approaches and tools
considered to be useful for policy processes have been developed by private companies.
One example concerns decision-making tools.10
Although KM is no silos and tools and
approaches developed for one purpose can also be used in other ways, it is important to be
aware of, for example, implicit assumptions underlying the design of an approach or a tool.
Secondly, knowledge of any kind or origin has to have a special format when entering the
political sphere including political action.11
It is said that knowledge contents which are
foreign to operating rules of policy processes cannot be handled. Especially in policy-making,
knowledge has to present a special plausibility, a focus on “what works” (Cibele & al., 2010)
to enhance its chance to impact on policies decisions and solutions. As a consequence,
special provisions may be required to make knowledge suitable for policy processes.
Thirdly, oftentimes, even when policy processes are presented as the central focus of KM
approaches and tools, these are not developed specifically or exclusively for policy
processes. Several sites presented as focused on policy processes, propose general KM
approaches and tools that were sometimes slightly adapted to or organized for policy
purposes.
An example is:
http://www.kmbestpractices.com/uploads/5/2/7/0/5270671/idea_knowledge_management_tools_
and_techniques.pdf (accessed 17th June 2014).
This site focused on supporting local government organizes its portfolio of KM resources in three blocks,
each with corresponding tools and techniques:
1. connecting people to information and knowledge (case study, rapid evidence review (RER),
knowledge banks, IDeA knowledge)
2. connecting people to people (communities of practice (CoP), peer assist, knowledge café,
knowledge marketplace)
3. organisation improvement (gone well/not gone well, after action review (AAR), retrospective
review, knowledge exchange
Although one of the appendixes lists online services for local government, none of the KM tools and
techniques described on this site are exclusively for policy processes.
9
http://www.henley.reading.ac.uk/research/research-centres/the-henley-forum-for-organisational-learning-and-
knowledge-strategies/ Accessed 1st June 2014.
10
http://www.knowledge-management-tools.net/knowledge-management-tools.html#ixzz33ZGMn4f0 accessed 2nd June
2014.
11
http://www.knowandpol.eu/Knowledge-as-practice.html?rub_id=255 MAYR Katharina, NASSEHI Armin, VON DER
HAGEN Alma Accessed 3
rd
June 2014.

9
Fourthly, the literature search points to several well-established policy areas that despite
being intimately associated, are not explicitly pointed out as KM related. In consequence,
although these areas do receive a fair degree of consideration within the policy realm, they
do not automatically benefit from insights gained in KM, or the other way around.
From a KM angle, certain policy-related areas so far did received (some) attention from KM
experts and practitioners. These policy areas relate to the following categories of KM
products and services:
 knowledge (through M&E and evidence creation) for advocacy and policy campaigns;
 knowledge to feed into policy processes as information or evidence (evidence-based
policy making) with research often taken as knowledge production, that is producing
information for policy development e.g. through mapping and statistics or through
Policy briefings toolkit.
Example: http://www.policy.manchester.ac.uk/resources/briefingtoolkit/
 Knowledge for monitoring and learning to create evidence and to judge policy
impact. Although there is an overlap with the first category, the purpose with which
the knowledge is produced differs.
Examples of resources:
o http://www.policy.manchester.ac.uk/resources/
o E.g. “Sir Humphrey and the professors: what does Whitehall want from academics, April 2014
http://www.policy.manchester.ac.uk/media/projects/policymanchester/1008_Policy@Man
chester_Senior_Civil_Servants_Survey_v4%281%29.pdf
 knowledge and innovation co-creation especially as an aspect of changing
governance arrangements. This is an emerging theme in KM that demands more
attention.12
From a knowledge lens then, the emphasis is on producing KM products and services for a
certain use: for advocacy and campaigns, to strengthen (evidence-based) policy-making, for
learning, for co-creation.
From a policy lens, the following policy areas are closely related to KM:
 policy and regulatory research and analysis
 government research and analysis
 policy impact analysis
12
http://journal.km4dev.org/index.php/km4dj/article/view/170/224

10
 policy and regulatory intelligence, often resulting in briefings
 policy development and implementation
These policy areas can be said to correspond to three (sub-)categories of demands for KM
results (products and services).
1. Research and analysis is intended to contribute to forecasting, that is, to foresee,
understand and assess strategic responses to complex public policy, regulatory and
reputational challenges. Oftentimes, this is achieved through capturing and
understanding the factors, stakeholders and possible outcomes that drive a policy or
regulatory process. Therefore, different types of intelligence can be said to form the
first category of KM product or service.
2. With regard to policy development and implementation, a second category is the
demand for composite KM products and services that combine a deep knowledge of
a sector with a knowledge about how best to assess and successfully manage political
and regulatory risk , and to navigate the evolving political climate. This second
category of KM results therefore consist of different types of evidence of, for
example, what works.
3. This second category of ‘knowing the terrain’ including how to navigate in relation to
risks is closely related to the third category of demand, that is, for knowledge about
‘how are we doing’. This third category consists of types to understand the policy
impacts.
These categories of KM results (products and services ) for policy processes can be
schematically presented as follows (see figure 1):
Figure 1: categories of KM products and services already in demand for policy processes.
In summary, from both a policy process and from a KM lens, there are areas of policy
types of
intelligence
types of
impacts
types of
evidence

11
processes where the two already intersect through a need for KM products and services.
The three categories of KM products and services already in demand for policy processes
can be described as follows:
 input for research and analysis (types of intelligence);
 knowledge about what will work (types of evidence);
 knowledge about how we are doing and what has been achieved (types of impact).
These can be used to various ends, such as in advocacy and campaigns, to strengthen
(evidence-based) policy-making, for learning, and for co-creation.
Describing or explicating the above-mentioned policy areas as KM areas generates
opportunities to enhance the synergy between KM and policy processes. For example, policy
processes can benefit from insights and lessons learnt in KM about how best to design
analytical exercises, or what principles to use to make these into inclusive multi-stakeholder
knowledge creation activities.
One key lesson learned from evaluations of KM approaches across different sectors is that
KM approaches and instruments need to contribute to an organisation’s mission. For that,
they need to intimately related to the organisation’s core business processes. Similarly, KM
approaches and instruments should support policy processes based on an intimate
connection with the main policy stages, namely:
1. agenda setting;
2. analysis;
3. decision-making;
4. implementation;
5. monitoring and evaluation
Therefore, the next chapter adopts the above set of stages and addresses the KM
approaches and instruments for each stage of a policy process.
2. KM approaches and instruments for different stages in policy processes
The previous chapter described the various concepts and established a method of presenting
how KM can support policy processes. While it is recognized that a policy process is ‘messy
and complex’, five stages were distinguished. In this chapter we have a closer look at these
five stages and the KM resources that may support a policy process at a particular stage. For
each stage, first the KM approach is described, that is, the specific focus and the guiding

12
philosophy. This then is followed by a short overview of KM tools that can be used
particularly during that stage. Where available and useful, examples are presented of tools.
2.1 Agenda Setting
Generally, agenda setting can be called a first stage in a policy process. Depending on the
design and aim, agenda setting can take on different forms and involve various types of
participants.
KM Approach Generally, KM approaches focus on obtaining or generating quantitatively or
qualitatively better information in order to make the process of agenda setting more robust.
This may be achieved by including information from other stakeholders like, for example,
local communities. To achieve this, systems principles may be followed for example to
identify stakeholders.
KM Tools For agenda setting, KM tools can be arranged in three groups, each with a different
knowledge purpose:
2.1.1 Information
2.1.2 Research
2.1.3 Knowledge integration
2.1.1 Information
With regard to KM tools used with the intention to expand the information base, a great
part of these are based on information systems intended to generate or improve maps, data
bases, and statistics.
Examples are:
African Regional Commodity Trade Link, current and historical commodity price information
International Monetary Fund, Data and Statistics
Regional Agricultural Trade Information Intelligence Network (RATIN), current and historical
commodity price information
United Nations, Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO), FAOSTAT
United Nations, Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO), International Commodity Prices
United Nations, Statistics Division, Commodity Trade Statistics Database, Comtrade
United Nations, Statistics Division, National Accounts
West Africa Agricultural Trade Network, current and historical commodity price information
http://www.resakss.org/map/
Regional Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System - ReSAKSS (http://www.resakss.org/) is
an Africa-wide network of regional nodes that offers high-quality analyses and knowledge products to

13
support implementation of the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP).
It approaches information (and research) from a systems’ angle. It could therefore also be categorized
under systems tools (see number 2.1.3).
The above listed resources are oriented towards (inter-) National Information Systems. One
important functionality is how to arrive from an (inter)national system to a local information
system. Led by local partnerships, Local Information Systems (LIS) collect, store and
disseminate information to support local decision-making and citizen empowerment.
One interesting website that provides information on how to assess LIS and develop LIS pilots is:
http://www.esd.org.uk/esdtoolkit/Communities/LIS/ContentView.aspx?ContentType=Content-287
and
http://www.esd.org.uk/Esdtoolkit/Communities/LIS/ContentView.aspx?ContentType=Content-372
These webpages provide a place for public sector staff to access and exchange support, advice, learning
and resources on local information systems. They also provide links to further resources.
2.1.2 Research
Whenever outside knowledge enters the political sphere, it has to go through a special
transformation process in order to become a usable resource for political action. This is
especially the case with scientific or academic knowledge with its special kind of inherent
self-doubt. A U-turn is needed to create a form of self-confidence– the opposite of self-
doubt. This is needed to present a special plausibility in policy processes knowledge is valued
that has the appearance of having passed the test of “feasibility” and providing ground for
‘evidence’- based policy processes.
ODI’s Research and Policy in Development Programme (RAPID)’s has created a framework for relating
research with policy: http://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/events-
documents/2764.pdf The framework comes with a detailed list of questions to assess the relationships
between research and policy: http://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/publications-
opinion-files/8854.pdf
In general, the RAPID’s site contains resources focused on the roles evidence based research plays,
amongst other issues, in influencing policy, and tools for bridging research and policy.
With regard to KM-based research tools and instruments, these can be grouped as follows,
with each group consisting of a multitude of different tools:
1. quantitative research tools, e.g. surveys. These tools often border the group of
information tools;
2. qualitative research tools, e.g. focus group discussions;
3. mixed methods: methods combining quantitative and qualitative tools.

14
2.1.3 Knowledge Integration: systems-based tools for agenda setting
In complex situations, for example, when multiple stakeholders are involved, designing the
stages of a policy process requires special attention. In such conditions how to build an
agenda entails special efforts, because of the range of voices involved. In consequence,
systems principles are used to varying degree in KM for policy processes.
Examples exist which demonstrate how to use an integrated knowledge translation
approach to build a public health research agenda.
An example from the health sector how that can be done is:
http://www.health-policy-systems.com/content/12/1/6 (Accessed 2nd June 2014) describes a case of
how a policy agenda was developed. The purpose of the Accelerating Public Health Systems Research in
Ontario: Building an Agenda was to bring together a group of key stakeholders from across Ontario with an
interest and expertise in Public Health Systems Research (PHSR), as well as national and international
PHSR experts, to engage in discussion and debate about PH systems research priorities at the provincial
level.
2.2 Analysis
Agenda setting is generally followed by analysis, a second stage in the policy process.
Similarly to the stage of agenda setting, analysis can focus on a range of aspects and take
many various forms involving different stakeholders depending on the specific aim and
design. Although in this stage, the emphasis is on analysis, analytical actions can occur in
other stages as well, notably in that of monitoring and evaluation.
KM Approach Overall, the aim of KM is to deepen or broaden the process of analysis in order
to enhance its quality and in that way ensure a better quality policy process. If designed and
implemented well, analysis can lead to the creation of more robust evidence.
KM Tools In general, KM tools focus on discerning what we are dealing with. Some resources
cover one topic of the analysis stage, other cover a range of different topics.
Regarding more topical analytical tools, a first group concentrates on the type of policy
processes. The leading question is what kind of policy process is at hand. In short, what is
going on. Distinguishing the type of knowledge involved in the policy process then serves as
a basis to determine the type of KM approach.
This is exemplified in the following document: http://www.henley.ac.uk/web/FILES/corporate/cl-
Knowledge_in_Action_issue_25.pdf
Some resources cover various tools and methods. One such resource presents a review of
different policy analysis tools and methods:

15
http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/mafap/documents/Synthesis_Report/Policy_analysis_in_Af
rica_-_a_review_of_experiences_and_methods.pdf
Of the reviewed methods the most relevant one is value chain analysis (VCA) for policy-
making (see especially chapter 2 in that document). While topical, VCA can be said to pertain
to a second group consisting of KM tools based in systems thinking.
A third group can be said to consist of more integrated (as opposed to topical) tools that
cover different areas. They can but need not be based on systems thinking.
An example of a non-systems based site located in the agricultural sector is:
http://www.fao.org/mafap/en/
MAFAP develops innovative analysis for policymakers and other stakeholders in the food and agricultural
sector and covers most of the key issues driving food and agricultural policy dialogue. It translates
information into analytical products such as country reports, commodity-specific technical notes, policy
briefs and country profiles.
An example of an integrated, systems-based KM source is the guide on strategic analysis and creation of
knowledge support systems13
, first launched by the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
IFPRI defines a Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System (SAKSS) as a network of people and
institutions that provides timely, credible, and evidence-based knowledge and analysis to inform
agricultural and rural development (ARD) strategies in Africa. Although it pitches at a conceptual level,
and in consequence is not always an easy read for those in search of step by step handbooks, the guide
provides different strategic analysis models in a conceptually clear and well-founded manner.
In this same category belong the earlier mentioned tools to create strategic analysis and knowledge
support systems, like the earlier mentioned regional strategy analysis and knowledge support systems.
Within systems-based tools, there are several (sub)groups that cover important topics. In
consequence, here they are placed separately because of their importance and the special
attention that should be given to the aspects they cover.
A fourth group of tools focuses on analysis of different aspects of stakeholders.
The Stakeholder Power Analysis guide developed by IIED in 200514
focuses on the analysis of power in
multi-stakeholder relations in policy processes. The guide proposes an approach with the following six
steps:
1. Develop purpose and procedures of analysis and initial understanding of the system
2. Identify key stakeholders
3. Investigate stakeholders’ interests, characteristics and circumstances
4. Identify patterns and contexts of interaction between stakeholders
13
Michael Johnson and Kathleen Flaherty
,
2011. Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support Systems for Agriculture and
Rural Development in Africa: Translating evidence into action. IFPRI Food Security in Practice series.
http://www.ifpri.org/sites/default/files/publications/sp6.pdf Accessed 5th June 2014
14
http://www.policy-powertools.org/Tools/Understanding/docs/stakeholder_power_tool_english.pdf Accessed 6th June
2014

16
5. Assess stakeholders’ power and potential roles
6. Assess options and use the findings to make progress
The guide is detailed and provides concrete, doable guidance geared towards achieving change
particularly in policy areas.
Within the group of tools for stakeholder analysis are tools for social network analysis. These
tools can be IT or non-IT based and focus on stakeholders and sometimes their relationships.
An example is the spider-web diagram (http://www.wageningenportals.nl/msp/tool/spider-web-
network-diagram). This tool allows for a quick visualization of the actors and their interrelations in
multi-stakeholder process (MSP ) including networks. The diagram will show which stakeholders are
well-connected to each other, and what sub-coalitions are present in the MSP configuration and the
different types of relationships.
Within the group of stakeholder relations analysis tools, some zero in on specific type of
relations.
An example is the Political Analytical Tool (PAT:
http://www.wageningenportals.nl/msp/tool/political-analytical-tool-software) which is a piece of
software that helps to visualise political relationships (coalitions, alliances, networks), developed by the
Developmental Leadership Program (www.dlprog.org).
A fifth group of KM tools focuses on analysis of institutions with an institution being “any
structure or mechanism of social order governing the behaviour of a set of individuals within
a given group”.
Two examples are:
 http://go.worldbank.org/Y8JVGH86W1 which provides a clear description of what social analysis of
institutions is. It distinguishes between static map and process map. However, the guide is less strong on
the how to’s of social analysis of institutions;
 http://www.wageningenportals.nl/msp/tool/institutional-analysis. This resource provides detailed and
concrete guidance on how to do an institutional analysis.
A sixth and last group of tools focuses on the change process, for example by analyzing the
drivers and containers of change.
An example is: http://www.managingforimpact.org/tool/drivers-and-constrainers-change. This tool is
used to strategically assess ‘forces’ that are involved in keeping a situation as it is or moving it in a
different direction.
2.3 Decision making (Defining objectives & options)

17
In the third stage of a policy process, emphasis is on decision-making. Decisions can be taken
about many aspects, but generally relate in one way or the other to planning of the policy
process.
KM Approach Overall, the aim of KM is to contribute to the robustness of decision making in
a policy process. They can contribute in two ways:
1. Create or strengthen the knowledge base from which participants in the policy
process draw to make decisions;
2. Encourage reflection and reflexivity, among others, by bringing in divergent voices or
broadening the range of issues to be considered.
At a general level, it is argued that good decision making processes need to relate to and be
embedded within an organisation’s or a network’s central processes. Various aspects of KM
can help in ensuring that the organisation has considered and optimized the conditions to
support decision-making processes. These include, for example, the use of expert
knowledge, use of technology, internal and external collaborations, organisational learning
from decisions, and developing individuals as decision makers.
One proposition how to do that is made in the following resource:
http://www.henley.ac.uk/web/FILES/corporate/cl-KM_Forum_Knowledge_in_Action_issue_21.pdf
(Accessed 16th
June 2014).
It points to five essential factors that must be worked on in an integrated way in order to improve the
organisation’s ability to make good decisions. The five factors are: the use of expert knowledge, use of
technology, internal and external collaborations, organisational learning from decisions, and developing
individuals as decision makers. These five factors relate to KM in differing degrees.
KM Tools
Three different categories of ways of making decisions are considered here:
 Consensus decision making: decision making processes that aims to find decisions
which everyone can accept.
 Hierarchical decision making: making decisions on the basis of formal positions of
authority
 Majority decision making: basing decisions which have the support of the majority of
the decision makers.
KM methods and tools can then be classified per way of decision-making.
One resource that describes these ways of decision-making and groups KM methods and tools
accordingly is: http://betterevaluation.org/plan/manage/who_controls. Although it focuses on
decisions related to evaluations, the methods and tools described can be used in policy processes, such as
the guide to consensus decision-making.

18
Another resource is the KS toolkit which describes a multitude of methods and tools in a more detailed
manner. Dotmocracy (http://www.kstoolkit.org/Dotmocracy is an example of a tool that may be
relevant in a policy decision-making process. Unfortunately, while organized per ‘context’ (e.g.
planning, monitoring and evaluation; listening, gathering information etc….), the toolkit does not
separate out tools for policy processes, nor do the contexts overlap with the policy process stages such as
decision-making. This forces a reader to review the tools one by one.
KM tools can take further issues identified during the stage of analysis e.g. by mapping
drivers, trends, issues and stakeholders. Mapping is useful in planning for action and
ultimately meant to strengthen policy decisions. Mapping can also be applied in the later
stage of analysis.
Mapping can zoom in the major drivers to bring about change, how these are translating
into trends for different actors, and what the implications (issues and opportunities) of these
trends are for different actors. Such a mapping exercise produces three sets of outputs for
multi-stakeholder settings:
 A list of key drivers;
 A list of trends, some of which may be certain, and others which will be uncertain.
Looking at uncertainties is an important part of the scenario analysis;
 A table that lists different issues and opportunities for different stakeholders faced
with these trends.
By making these explicit, they can be shared and in this way facilitate a process of shared
decision-making.
An example of a mapping tool is: http://www.wageningenportals.nl/msp/tool/mapping-drivers-trends-
issues-and-opportunities
Also, there is the category of Decision support systems. Generally, these are specific
computer software applications that are capable of carrying out reasoning and analysing a
subject area with a level of proficiency close to the level of human experts. The role of these
systems is to access and manipulate data in order to computerize and structure decision-
making. They usually work with a data warehouse, use an online analytical processing
system (OLAP), and employ data mining techniques. In some cases they also include
functionalities targeting the management of participatory processes. Also, they can provide
an analysis of obstacles and problems, and recommendations for future use.
One example from the water sector is: http://www.splash-era.net/downloads/D9-4_D9-
5_DSS_for_IWRM.pdf (accessed 3rd
June 2014). It describes how a decision support system can be used,
and presents experiences in different countries.
Another example is the following resource from the agricultural sector:
http://www.ifpri.org/sites/default/files/publications/babu99_01.pdf which described an approach

19
used to generate decentralized policy recommendations of crop choices in order to achieve household
food security and nutrition.
Furthermore, KM tools can aim at different ways of so-called Knowledge Translation (KT).
These tools often equate knowledge with research, and they specifically focus on ‘preparing’
research results for use in policy decision-making.
One example15
proposes the need for research summaries, that translates research results specifically for
management and policy purposes. The resource pleads for more collaboration between the data
collectors (researchers) and the data interpreters (decision-makers) as those working in the system are
often more skilled at this than those collecting the data, and careful an context-dependent data
interpretation is crucial.
Another example is the Knowledge Translation Toolkit prepared for IDRC16
(2011) which provides
handles on how to effectively bridge the “know–do” gap between research, policy and practice.
Ultimately, it aims to contribute to evidence-informed decision-making.
The World Health Organisation (WHO) presents a clear overview of existing KT frameworks in the
context of ageing, but the observations made are applicable more widely.17
The page provides an
overview of strengths and weaknesses of different knowledge translation frameworks for health policy
making (in this case of ageing).
The review of KT frameworks demonstrate that the frameworks span a wide spectrum of theories, such
as, planned action theory, diffusion of innovation, change management theory, and decision making
theories. Several of the frameworks share concepts. However, the majority of them have not been
empirically tested. The following frameworks and tools were identified:
1. Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services(PARIHS) framework
2. Ottawa Model of Research Use (OMRU) framework
3. The Knowledge to Action (KTA) framework
4. Framework for Research Dissemination and Utilization(RD&U)
5. Consolidated Framework For Implementation Research (CFIR)
6. Research and Policy in Development (RAPID) model
7. Assessing country level efforts linking research to action (Linking RTA)
8. Canadian Health Services Research Foundation (CHSRF) Self-Assessment tool
9. Supporting Policy relevant Reviews and Trials (SUPPORT) tools
One important condition for knowledge translation to work, is that it has to be embedded
within the core business and central managerial process. By doing so, an organisational
learning process can be supported.
15
CHSRF Knowledge Transfer: Decision Support: A New Approach to Making the Best Healthcare Management and Policy
Choices. Healthcare Quarterly, 10(3) May 2007: 16-18. http://www.longwoods.com/content/18918 Accessed 2
nd
June
2014
16
http://www.idrc.ca/EN/Resources/Publications/Pages/IDRCBookDetails.aspx?PublicationID=851. Accessed 10
th
September 2014.
17
http://www.who.int/ageing/publications/knowledge_translation.pdf?ua=1 Accessed 2nd June 2014 (page 10)

20
The following resource (http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/84/8/05-026922.pdf) proposes a
basic approach to ensuring that knowledge from research studies is translated for use in health services
management so as to build a learning organization. It posits that an integrated and interactive approach is
essential to ensure that knowledge from research is translated in a way that allows a learning organization
to be built. For this, knowledge is not to be used merely to influence a single decision in isolation from
the overall services and management of an organization. Rather, it is important to understand how
different knowledge types interact in overall health services management.
Another resource that also focuses on Knowledge Translation is Integrated Knowledge Translation
(IKT). IKT covers different approaches, but generally the intention is to involve different parties
including end-users in activities to reformat knowledge to increase its usability. The Canadian Institutes
of Health Research (CIHR) have developed various practical IKT resources:
 Factsheet Knowledge translation CIHR (Health): http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/39033.html
 Guide to Knowledge Translation Planning at CIHR: Integrated and End-of-Grant Approaches
http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/45321.html Accessed 2nd June 2014
 A Guide to Researcher and Knowledge-User Collaboration in Health Research, http://www.cihr-ir
sc.gc.ca/e/44954.html. 18
A fifth category of tools focuses specifically on Knowledge Sharing for policy decisions. The
assumption is that evidence-based decision making can be promoted by collecting and
disseminating information on policy decisions.
The Food and Agriculture Policy Decision Analysis (FAPDA:
http://www.fao.org/economic/fapda/tool/Main.html) is an initiative that aims to do so via a freely
accessible web-based tool. The web-based tool FAPDA tool gathers policy decisions collected since 2008
from more than eighty countries. It tracks national food and agriculture policy decisions in more than
eighty countries. At country level, FAPDA focuses on developing the capacities of national partners and
institutionalizing policy monitoring functions to systematically monitor and analyze policy decisions for a
more transparent and effective policy environment and coherent and effective food and agriculture
policies.
2.4 Implementation
In the fourth stage of a policy process is emphasis is on the one hand on how the
implementation of a policy can be guided, and on the other hand, on what can be done
during the policy implementation period.
KM Approach Overall, in this stage, the aim of KM approaches and tools is twofold and
follows the emphases of this stage, that is:
1. to guide the implementation of a policy; and
18
A Guide to Researcher and Knowledge-User Collaboration in Health Research, http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/44954.html.
David Parry, BA (Hons.) Jon Salsberg, MA Ann C. Macaulay, CM MD FCPC, McGill (PRAM)

21
2. to contribute to obtaining needed knowledge during the implementation, and based
on that knowledge to adjust the way a policy is implemented.
KM Tools The first aim of KM of guiding implementation of policy is closely related to the
stage of analysis; the second aim of finding out what can be done during policy
implementation overlaps with the stage of monitoring and evaluation. The KM tools
corresponding to these two aims will therefore be dealt with during those stages.
From a more general perspective on implementation of a policy, the following resource presents a short
overview of lessons that lead to successfully linking knowledge with action: www.future-
agricultures.org/e-debate/.../470-patti-kristjanson
2.5 Monitoring & Evaluation
In the fifth stage of a policy process emphasis is on monitoring and evaluation. In general,
monitoring means to be aware of the state of a system, a process of a situation including
any changes which may occur over time. Evaluation is to appraise or assess in a structured
way, to interpret and give of meaning to predicted or actual impacts of proposals or results.
Policy monitoring comprises activities that range from describing and analyzing the
development and implementation of policies, identifying potential gaps in the process and
areas for improvement, to holding policy implementers accountable. Policy evaluation
applies evaluation principles and methods to examine the content, implementation or
impact of a policy. It is the activity through which an understanding is developed of the
merit, worth, and utility of a policy.19
Both monitoring and evaluation can take on a number
of different forms with slightly different purposes, stakeholders and audiences. This diversity
reflects on approaches and tools for KM for policy processes.
It has to be remembered that a policy process needs not to end at this stage of monitoring
and evaluation, but may consist of multiple cycles of overlapping and –overflowing stages
characterized by different emphases in focus. In consequence, monitoring and evaluation
may lead to a new cycle in a policy process.
KM Approach As mentioned before, overall, the aim of KM is to strengthen the knowledge
base (through generation or sharing of knowledge) that guides or provides the basis to
adjust a policy process. In that sense, it is closely interrelated to aspects of learning,
accountability, and control, and should be embedded in processes of management of the
core services and business.
KM Tools With regard to policy monitoring, different concepts and steps in monitoring exist.
19
http://www.cdc.gov/injury/pdfs/policy/Brief%201-a.pdf accessed 20
th
June 2014

22
A concise description of is given in the following resource:
http://www.qualityplanning.org.nz/images/documents/Monitoring_Steps/Policy_and_plan_effective
ness_monitoring/Policy_and_plan_effectiveness_monitoring_-_Monitoring_Steps_20022014.pdf
Although referring to the context of New Zealand, for example, its laws and other particularities, the
document provides a clear description of the different steps for policy monitoring and practical counsel
how to design these.
One specific area of policy monitoring which received a lot of attention is monitoring of
policy influence. There are various resources available in this area, all closely related to
advocacy or lobby.
Examples are:
1. "ROMA - the ultimate development policy guide". Although this resource by RAPID, ODI’s
Research and Policy in Development programme is focused on policy influencing, the tools
proposed can be used for policy processes in general. An example is the section on monitoring and
managing data: http://roma.odi.org/how_to_monitor-collecting_and_managing_data.html. The
innovation is that the Rapid Outcome Mapping Approach (ROMA) guide uses outcome mapping, a
method worked out by IDRC, as the basis of their methodology;
2. http://www.vippal.org/brochure/archivos/learners_practitioners_and_teachers.pdf Learners,
practitioners, and teachers : handbook on monitoring, evaluating and managing knowledge for
policy influence. Vanesa Weyrauch ; Julia D ́Agostino ; Clara Richards. - 1a ed. - Buenos Aires :
Fundación CIPPEC, 2011. Although this resource focuses on Latin-America and (sideways) on
education, the insights and guidelines proffered can be used more widely.
With regard to policy evaluation, it should be stressed that policy evaluation and program
evaluation lie close to each other. However, while they have many similarities, there are
some important differences as well.
One example www.cdc.gov/injury/pdfs/policy/Brief 1-a.pdf spells out some of these differences:
1. The level of analysis required (e.g., system or community level for policy evaluation; program level
for program evaluation).
2. The degree of control and clear “boundaries” may be more challenging with policy evaluation
3. The ability to identify an equivalent comparison community may be more challenging with policy
evaluation.
4. The scale and scope of data collection may be greater with policy evaluation.
5. Policy evaluation may require increased emphasis on the use of surveillance and administrative data.
6. The type and number of stakeholders involved may different
Although this resource has been developed for violence and injury prevention policies in Canada, the
proposed differences do apply to other policy areas as well.

23
This same source describes clearly the different steps to be organized in policy evaluation, thereby
distinguishing phases of evaluating policy content, policy implementation and impact. The site20
also
provides a number of briefs that each describe a different type of policy evaluation.
There exists a number of tools or toolkits specifically for policy monitoring and evaluation. In
general, the proposed tools are also applicable in monitoring and evaluation of other issues.
Some examples are presented here:
1. A guide for civil society organisations to monitor policies
http://commdev.org/files/1818_file_monitoringgovernmentpolicies.pdf Used tools are for example,
Interviews, surveys, focus groups.
2. IPAL guide 3, Keystone accountability
http://www.keystoneaccountability.org/sites/default/files/3%20Learning%20with%20constituents_0
.pdf Accessed 11th
June 2014
A practical guide explaining three instruments or tools (feedback survey, formal dialogue processes,
journals of change) to identifying, documenting and analysing evidence of (planned or unplanned) impact
and learning from this in dialogue with constituents. Although focused on evidence, the tools are also
applicable for policy processes.
3. To monitor policy impacts, eight methodological steps of MPI are presented in:
http://www.fao.org/docs/up/easypol/383/8-methlgcl-stps_057EN.pdf 2005. It presents a clear, but
linear model and thinking. oriented to formal system e.g. ministry
4. Keystone and IScale present a step-by-step guide focused on how to set up and conduct a feedback survey
for transnational social change networks. It is also useful more in general for multi-level/multi-location
policy processes http://www.keystoneaccountability.org/sites/default/files/Network%20CCF-guide-
web.pdf Accessed 11th
June 2014
5. To enable a participatory review of local governance conditions,
http://www.impactalliance.org/ev_en.php?ID=12698_201&ID2=DO_TOPIC (Accessed 11th
June
2014) presents an assessment is made of Local Governance. It also allows the comparison of results from
one locality to another.
As mentioned, the use of the tools and toolkits presented on the above sites is not limited to
policy processes. Focus groups, for example, can also be used in many other ways. In
general, there is an overlap between KM tools for policy monitoring and evaluation with
more general monitoring and evaluation tools.
3. KM in support of Policy processes: three issues of importance
When looking into KM approaches and tools in support of policy processes, a number of
issues emerges which needs to be taken into consideration. This chapter deals with three
such issues. They form the complex gist of policy processes, and force involved parties to
think twice about designing and rolling out linear, top-down approaches and tools. These
issues are:
20
http://www.cdc.gov/injury/about/policy/evaluation.html accessed 20th June 2014

24
3.1 The political dimensions of policy processes;
3.2 the related issue of power relations and local voices;
3.3 The emerging trends in policy processes.
3.1 Political dimensions of policy processes
Political dimensions form innate elements of a policy process. They need to be identified,
analysed and taken into consideration in the design and implementation of policy process.
Political dimensions require that conflict management and negotiation form inherent
aspects of navigating and managing policy processes. As a consequence, they also should
form important elements in the design and use of KM resources for the different stages of
policy processes. There are numerous resources available on negotiation and conflict
management or resolution.
One example is the following resource on negotiation, which explains the different stages of negotiation
process: http://www.skillsyouneed.com/ips/negotiation.html (accessed 3rd July 2014).
Another resource that briefly explains the different types of and tools for more effective negotiations is:
http://www.fao.org/docs/up/easypol/798/negotiation-introduction_256en.pdf (accessed 3rd July
2014).
This resource rightly promotes the idea that there is no one right way to negotiate, and that negotiation is
not a theory, but a set of practical skills that follow a certain mindset and thinking. Although supposedly
meant specifically for policy processes, the suggested thinking based on the three pillars of process,
relations, and content, is more widely applicable. The same site
(http://www.fao.org/easypol/output/index.asp) also offers a more detailed paper:
http://www.fao.org/docs/up/easypol/550/4-5_negotiation_background_paper_179en.pdf (accessed
2nd July 2014). The paper first presents five different approaches to negotiation, followed by a practical
description of the seven steps to what it calls principled bargaining.
Although not focused on policy processes per say , the following resource provides a very practical and
hands-on 12 skills approach to conflict resolution: http://www.crnhq.org/pages.php?pID=10 (accessed
29th of June 2014). Examples of skills are:
 The win-win approach: http://www.crnhq.org/pages.php?pID=12#skill_1
 Willingness to resolve: http://www.crnhq.org/pages.php?pID=12#skill_4
 Introduction to negotiation: http://www.crnhq.org/pages.php?pID=12#skill_10
Although strictly speaking, resources are not explicitly named KM, they are closely related
and often make up key elements in KM approaches and tools for policy processes.
3.2 Power relations and local voices in policy processes
Related to political dimensions is the issue of power relations in policy processes. For
example, whose knowledge is taken into consideration when designing KM approaches, or

25
using KM tools depends on the constellation of power relations. Often, special provisions
need to be made in order to surface local voices or voices that are not mainstream as these
may lack the resources, standing or recognition to participate as equal partners in
knowledge endeavours in policy processes.
The following resource deals with knowledge, policy and power in international development:
http://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/publications-opinion-files/8201.pdf.
This working paper present a four-fold framework for analysing the interface between knowledge,
policy and practice. The framework is designed to enable all those who a play a role in shaping the
content of policies - policy-makers, researchers, civil society organisations, non-governmental
organisations and donors - to better understand and address the complex interaction between knowledge
and policy. Although at times abstract, the paper is practical enough to help stakeholders understand of
the complex interface between knowledge and policy and to systematically draw out grounded,
operational implications for action.
3.3 Emerging trends in policy processes
In policy processes, value judgements and political interests play roles that are of equal
importance as technical facts and rational aspects. Overlapping and competing agendas
further complicate a smooth process. More and more, policy processes take place in a
landscape of growing complexity where policy issues cannot easily be dealt with through
ready-made solutions. The call therefore is for KM approaches and tools that support an
emergent learning approach and allow for multiple parties to contribute. This puts forward
the need, among others, for multilevel, and multi-stakeholder approaches.
In this landscape of growing complexity, three emerging changes can be identified in policy
processes. The first change relates to technological advances thereby transforming the way
interactions take place in policy processes. This change is generally driven by ICT. As a result,
KM approaches and tools such as digital networks, platforms and social media tools make
their way into policy processes. They change the way how, for example, citizens
consultations can be organised, how stakeholders in a policy process can interact or call each
other to account.
A second change sprouts from the degree of complexity of current days problems. Food and
nutrition security, climate change and water management are issues that cannot be solved
by one party alone. They require policy processes that depend on multi-stakeholder
approaches and tools, and that often stretched over multiple levels. This also applies to KM
for policy processes. A range of approaches have emerged in past years, such as, round
tables, or innovation platforms. They generally make use of systems principles and stress the
need for participation.

26
Constituent Voice is a methodology developed by Keystone Accountability to enable organizations to
improve results by optimizing their relationships with their constituents. The technical note explains step
by step how to use voices from constituents to design a process from design to evaluation, including a
policy process. Technical Note 1: Constituent Voice, Autumn 2013. Accessed 10th
July 2014.
http://www.keystoneaccountability.org/sites/default/files/Technical%20Note%201%20-
%20Constituent%20Voice%20.pdf
Across sectors, policy processes make use of participatory methods when they aim for
inclusiveness or have multi-stakeholder characteristics such as policy processes with round
tables or innovation platforms.
The following resource http://www.participatorymethods.org/ is a site that provides a quick overview of
process stages when participatory methods can be used:
 Plan, Monitor and Evaluate
 Learn and Empower
 Research and Analyse
 Communicate
 Facilitate
The site explains briefly what participatory methods are, where and how they are used, and their problems
and potentials, but does not provide how-to’s. It does, however, provide useful links to facilitation tools and
methods: http://www.participatorymethods.org/task/facilitate
Another site that is focused on participatory approaches and tools is:
http://www.fao.org/Participation/english_web_new/content_en/tool_part_.html.
It organizes approaches and tools along a project cycle. Although some tools are outdated (e.g. logframes)
and the tools are not specific to policy processes, the site is useful to obtain some structured ideas about tools
and methods. Especially the page on project management stages provides tools and methods that can be used
in policy processes, such as participatory data gathering tools.
A third change concerns the shifting roles and functions of government agencies. Big
government is to be replaced by big society, business is to drive (and resource) economic
growth and societal change, value for money is becoming a governing principle. As a
consequence, not only do accountability strategies play an increasing role, also concepts
such as open governance and co-governance forms increasingly play a role in policy
processes. As a consequence of these changes, KM also take on a different character with a
greater emphasis on multi-stakeholder and co-creation approaches and tools. This results in
an increase in approaches and tools based on systems principles.
One example is a learning alliance (http://www.alianzasdeaprendizaje.org/index.php) which rely on an
iterative learning process jointly undertaken among multiple stakeholders including, among others,
knowledge institutes including universities and research organizations, development agencies, policy
makers and private businesses.

27
4. KM services and products
As we have seen in the first chapter, from a policy perspective, the three categories of KM
products and services already in demand for policy processes are:
 input for research and analysis (types of intelligence);
 knowledge about what will work (types of evidence);
 knowledge about how we are doing and what has been achieved (types of impact).
At the same time, from a knowledge angle, categories of KM products and services are also
created for certain policy-related areas:
 knowledge (through M&E and evidence creation) for advocacy and policy campaigns;
 knowledge to feed into policy processes as information or evidence with research
often taken as knowledge production;
 knowledge for monitoring and learning to create evidence and to judge policy impact
(with a purpose differing from the first category);
 knowledge and innovation co-creation especially as an aspect of changing
governance arrangements.
As explained, there are areas of policy processes where these already connect with KM
pushed by a need for knowledge products and services. To further to strengthen the
appropriateness of KM approaches and tools and enhance synergies for CTA's support policy
processes, this chapter will look into design and implementation of knowledge products
creation.

29
ANNEX :
Policy processes phases Knowledge Management Examples of Resources
Agenda setting
Depending on the design
and aim, agenda setting
can take on different forms
and involve various types
of participants.
Approach Generally, KM approaches
focus on obtaining or generating
quantitatively or qualitatively better
information in order to make the
process of agenda setting more
robust. This may be achieved by
including information from other
stakeholders like, for example, local
communities. To achieve this,
systems principles may be followed
for example to identify
stakeholders.
KM Tools KM tools can be arranged
in three groups, each with a
different knowledge purpose:
a. Information
b. Research
c. Knowledge integration
Analysis
Depending on the aim and
design, analysis can focus
on a range of aspects and
take many various forms
involving different
stakeholders. Although in
this stage, the emphasis is
on analysis, analytical
actions can occur in other
stages as well, notably in
that of monitoring and
evaluation.
Approach Overall, the aim of KM is
to deepen or broaden the process
of analysis in order to enhance its
quality and in that way ensure a
better quality policy process.
KM Tools In general, KM tools focus
on discerning what we are dealing
with, such as type of stakeholders,
power relations, etc.
Decision-making
Decisions can be taken
about many aspects, but
generally relate in one way
or the other to planning of
to contribute to the robustness of
decision making in a policy process.
They can contribute in two ways:
3. Create or strengthen the
knowledge base from which

30
the policy process. participants in the policy
process draw to make
decisions
4. Encourage reflection and
reflexivity, among others,
by bringing in divergent
voices or broadening the
range of issues to be
considered
KM Tools
First of all, KM can help unravel the
ways of making decisions. This can
be done in different ways: by
distinguishing type of decisions, by
decision support systems, or by
knowledge translation frameworks
Implementation
In the fourth stage of a
policy process is emphasis
is on the one hand on how
the implementation of a
policy can be guided, and
on the other hand, on
what can be done during
the policy implementation.
Approach Overall, the aim of KM
approaches and tools follows the
emphases during this stage, that is
to guide the implementation of a
policy, and to contribute to
obtaining needed knowledge during
the implementation, and based on
that knowledge to adjust the way a
policy is implemented.
KM Tools The first contribution of
KM of guiding implementation of
policy is closely related to the stage
of analysis;, the second contribution
of finding out what can be done
during policy implementation
overlaps with the stage of
monitoring and evaluation. The KM
tools corresponding to these two
contributions will therefore be dealt
with during those stages.
Monitoring and
evaluation
Policy monitoring
comprises activities that
range from describing and
to strengthen the knowledge base
(through generation or sharing of
knowledge) that guides or provides
the basis to adjust a policy process.

31
analyzing the development
and implementation of
policies, identifying
potential gaps in the
process and areas for
improvement, to holding
policy implementers
accountable.
Policy evaluation applies
evaluation principles and
methods to examine the
content, implementation
or impact of a policy. It is
the activity through which
an understanding is
developed of the merit,
worth, and utility of a
policy.
Both monitoring and
evaluation can take on a
number of different forms
with slightly different
purposes, stakeholders
and audiences.
In that sense, it is closely
interrelated to aspects of learning,
accountability, and control, and
should be embedded in processes
of management of the core services
and business.
KM Tools There is an overlap
between KM tools for policy
monitoring and evaluation with
more general monitoring and
evaluation tools.
One specific area of policy
monitoring which received a lot of
attention is monitoring of policy
influence.

CTA KM KS 4 Policy Final Report Dec 2015

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (10)

Similar to CTA KM KS 4 Policy Final Report Dec 2015

Similar to CTA KM KS 4 Policy Final Report Dec 2015 (20)

CTA KM KS 4 Policy Final Report Dec 2015